wellcome_get_work

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a fetch (read-only) operation and that the response includes all associated IIIF image URLs. However, it does not describe error behavior, response format validity, or any potential rate limits, leaving some gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value in specifying the action, resource, and key output detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the primary purpose and the notable return behavior (IIIF image URLs). It does not explain error cases or full response structure, but these are secondary for a straightforward fetch operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by indicating that the 'id' parameter is the Wellcome work identifier, but it lacks examples or format details. For a single parameter, this is adequate but minimal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the action ('Fetch'), the target resource ('Wellcome work'), and the unique distinguishing feature (includes IIIF image URLs). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like wellcome_search and wellcome_image_url.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage: when you have a Wellcome work ID and need the work with its IIIF image URLs. It provides no explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives like wellcome_search or wellcome_image_url, so guidance is only implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.